CrossOver Allows x86 Windows Apps to Run on Apple M1 Macs

[phrehdd]

I would be curious how this compares to any upcoming Parallels or VMWare Fusion or Oracle's virtual (Virtual box??). The only apps I was interested in running these days are a series of shareware/freeware grouped together under ClownBd (TSMuxer, EACto3 etc.). Thoughts?

 

[gavroche]

Ah yes, it can run a 13 year old game with frequent frame drops. The M1 really is Jesus in chip form.

How well do Windows machines run any Mac app? I’ll wait while you compile that list

heck... my family members with PCs can’t even open any of the spreadsheets or documents I send them, if I don’t cover then to pc format first, or to pdf.

 

[arn]

Actually Rosetta 2 is no more an emulator then WINE is. It, like WINE, is a translator and translators are far faster then emulators. This is why x86 in Microsoft's ARM Windows blows goats - it emulators rather than translators the x86 code.

I'm fine if you insist on calling Rosetta a binary translator but Rosetta and WINE are very different. WINE simply won't run on a non x86 processor (without something like Rosetta)

 

[atomicparker]

How well do Windows machines run any Mac app? I’ll wait while you compile that list

heck... my family members with PCs can’t even open any of the spreadsheets or documents I send them, if I don’t cover then to pc format first, or to pdf.

I really dont think he's talking about that. We all know Mac isn't a great gaming platform but for those of us who have macs with real video cards they're *not bad* and most modern games are quite playable. There's really no hope for mac gaming anymore honestly after Catalina killing 32 bit apps and moving from Intel. Oh well. A cheap gaming PC will get me by I guess.

 

[Maximara]

I would be curious how this compares to any upcoming Parallels or VMWare Fusion or Oracle's virtual (Virtual box??). The only apps I was interested in running these days are a series of shareware/freeware grouped together under ClownBd (TSMuxer, EACto3 etc.). Thoughts?

Based on the forums for VirtualBox it will not be ported as "it requires x86 CPU". The post after the M1 Macs show that unless there has behind the scenes work don't expect anything soon. So outside of the small number of programs that WINE can handle it is Parallels and likely upcoming VMWare Fusion ie commercial.

 

[arn]

I would be curious how this compares to any upcoming Parallels or VMWare Fusion or Oracle's virtual (Virtual box??). The only apps I was interested in running these days are a series of shareware/freeware grouped together under ClownBd (TSMuxer, EACto3 etc.). Thoughts?

It's not clear if Parallels or VMWare fusion are going to offer the ability to run x86 on their Apple Silicon products.

People are reading into this blog post, but they never say it's happening. Just mention it's interesting that Microsoft is adding support of x64 applications in Windows. That's perhaps the best path, but they don't outright say it's gonna happen. I imagine it might depend more on Microsoft than Parallels.

Parallels Desktop for Mac with Apple M1 chip

Best way to run Windows on Mac - Parallels Product Blog - Run Windows, Linux, and more on your Mac. Helpful tips and tricks, Apple macOS and Mirosoft Windows news

www.parallels.com

 

[Maximara]

I'm fine if you insist on calling Rosetta a binary translator but Rosetta and WINE are very different. WINE simply won't run on a non x86 processor (without something like Rosetta)

Not true. From the WineHQ itself (ARM support):

• Yes, It works! (TM)
• Running win8 ARM PEs also works.
• Already ported Putty to ARM as winelib application.
• First patch was September 18. 2009, final patchset sent September 18. 2010 and they got in Wine-1.3.4
• Wine on ARM already gets packaged by Debian (since 1.7.35), Fedora, Maemo and openSUSE.
• Good debugger/disassembler support.
• Relay tracing.
• Relocation.
• Linux Kernel patched upstream for running Windows RT applications see Bug 31322

 

[Madd the Sane]

Just to clarify, this is translation, not emulation as implied in the article, right?

Rosetta 2 can do both. This is most likely using emulation because there's no way Rosetta 2 can look into a Windows executable and translate them to ARM code. This probably also explains the bad frame rate.

 

[arn]

Not true. From the WineHQ itself (ARM support):

• Yes, It works! (TM)
• Running win8 ARM PEs also works.
• Already ported Putty to ARM as winelib application.
• First patch was September 18. 2009, final patchset sent September 18. 2010 and they got in Wine-1.3.4
• Wine on ARM already gets packaged by Debian (since 1.7.35), Fedora, Maemo and openSUSE.
• Good debugger/disassembler support.
• Relay tracing.
• Relocation.
• Linux Kernel patched upstream for running Windows RT applications see Bug 31322

I can't tell based on what's written -- but isn't that running ARM Windows? Not x86 Windows on ARM?

 

[Maximara]

I can't tell based on what's written -- but isn't that running ARM Windows? Not x86 Windows on ARM?

Crossover is a commercial fork of WINE. Crossover runs on M1. M1 uses the ARM instruction set. Ergo WINE (or at least Crossover's fork of it) runs on ARM.

And downvoting this isn't going to change that fact.

 

[Serban55]

So based on my tests...rosetta2 has around 70-80% of native performance
Here under Crossover it has around 55% performance , so something else is happening in the back, im guessing is not just rosetta2 but crossover also
Pretty impressive nevertheless

 

[arn]

Crossover is a fork of WINE. It runs on M1. M1 uses ARM instruction set. Ergo WINE runs on ARM.

lol. but only because Rosetta exists. That's like saying SNES games run on ARM in an emulator

 

[Madd the Sane]

I can't tell based on what's written -- but isn't that running ARM Windows? Not x86 Windows on ARM?

That is correct. In order to run x86 Windows apps using Wine, you need an x86 CPU or a binary translator like Rosetta. Rosetta 2's recompilation can't dive into Windows executables, so it has to use JIT, which isn't as fast.

So based on my tests...rosetta2 has around 70-80% of native performance
Here under Crossover it has around 55% performance , so something else is happening in the back, im guessing is not just rosetta2 but crossover also
Pretty impressive nevertheless

Part of that is probably because of what Rosetta 2 has to do to get it to run.
And yes, the DirectX translator used by Crossover and Wine goes through OpenGL, which is being wrapped (I believe) into Metal calls (perhaps suboptimally).

 

[mannyvel]

Ah yes, it can run a 13 year old game with frequent frame drops. The M1 really is Jesus in chip form.

Another PC enthusiast getting butthurt. Just face it, Apple had the Jesus Phone and now has the Jesus Chip.

 

[Maximara]

lol. but only because Rosetta exists. That's like saying SNES games run on ARM in an emulator

As I pointed out with the information from WineHQ itself "Wine on ARM already gets packaged by Debian (since 1.7.35), Fedora, Maemo and openSUSE." and that is from July 2, 2018. Rosetta 2 didn't exist in the wild back in 2018.

Also there is a side project for WINE called Hangover. It uses the Qemu emulator to do its thing and is in real early stages but it also exists.

We have a version of WINE that runs on ARM with no Rosetta 2 (unless you show can that an early version of Rosetta 2 existed in 2018, somehow the WINE got ahold of it, and everybody could keep quiet about it. If you believe all that with no proof there is this Nigerian Prince who needs help ), we have an fork with a Qemu emulator (performance likely sucks as Microsoft's emulator blows goats), and Crossover's version that likely takes advantage of Rosetta 2.

So it is possible to run WINE on ARM without Rosetta 2 but it doesn't perform that well if you want to run x86 software

 

[joecomo]

Impressive - specially considering that Wine was already in development, while I was at the university.
It is at least 25 years old ...

 

[yurc]

I had using in past when still in El Capitan, and pretty damn good. I had problematic RAR files which is can't be opened properly using any archiving files out there, except winRAR itself.

I haven't build Windows machine at that times, so I try CrossOver to install WinRAR executable and I can say very worth it. Get it when you can still bought it, I am afraid it would turn into subscription service in future.

 

[Marbles1]

A good sign of things to come. I can't even consider an M1 Mac until there's a full windows 10 Intel environment available that's at least as stable as what parallels provides on intel Macs.

I'm sure a full blown emulator will come.

 

[Maximara]

A good sign of things to come. I can't even consider an M1 Mac until there's a full windows 10 Intel environment available that's at least as stable as what parallels provides on intel Macs.

I'm sure a full blown emulator will come.

Unless Microsoft can get their optimization speed up full blown emulator is going to have the same problem the current one for ARM Windows does - runs agonizingly slow. Translation is the only way one can really deal with all that Windows x86 code out there without the ARM sucking and I don't think Microsoft can make a translator because of the insane amount of hardware X86 supports.

 

[DrV]

Based on the forums for VirtualBox it will not be ported as "it requires x86 CPU". The post after the M1 Macs show that unless there has behind the scenes work don't expect anything soon. So outside of the small number of programs that WINE can handle it is Parallels and likely upcoming VMWare Fusion ie commercial.

I have no problems with commercial solutions. It is actually impossible to avoid them with Windows as a guest operating system — because Windows is commercial and not very cheap (even the Home version seems to be in the thr

Linux is another story, but the need for x86/x64 Linux is a niche as most Linux programs run well on ARMv8.

I don’t find it likely any FOSS project would produce a x86/x64 emulator (translator) in the near future. OTOH, most probably both Parallels and VMWare are considering it, and Microsoft has already done it.

 

[Marbles1]

I have no problems with commercial solutions. It is actually impossible to avoid them with Windows as a guest operating system — because Windows is commercial and not very cheap (even the Home version seems to be in the thr

Linux is another story, but the need for x86/x64 Linux is a niche as most Linux programs run well on ARMv8.

I don’t find it likely any FOSS project would produce a x86/x64 emulator (translator) in the near future. OTOH, most probably both Parallels and VMWare are considering it, and Microsoft has already done it.

What's the difference between an emulator and a translator?

 

[opeter]

Now run a 68k or PowerPC Mac emulator in Wine/CrossOver.

This is not a problem. If you have up running WINE, you can do that with Basilisk II or SheepShaver.
Oh and both programs have Mac x86 versions too... so you even don't need WINE/CrossOver. But yes, you can do.

The Official Basilisk II Home Page

Home page of the Basilisk II Macintosh emulator

basilisk.cebix.net

For different version look on their forum:

Basilisk II - E-Maculation

The Official SheepShaver Home Page

Home page of the SheepShaver Macintosh emulator

sheepshaver.cebix.net

Forum and download:

SheepShaver - E-Maculation

 

[Tozovac]

Wow the pricing. Am I correctly reading that it’s a pretty expensive proposition to use this for more than 1 year?

 

[SWAON]

Any reviews on Windows or Linux virtualization on M1? I would be more interested in such.

 

[DrV]

I am happy this topic of running nonMac apps on ARM is coming up. I want to hear about VMware, Parallels, Docker next.

There are two big changes in M1 macs.

First, the virtualization framework is a new one. Anyone trying to run virtual machines on M1 needs to rewrite the virtualization-related code. This is the reason why Docker is not (yet publicly) available for M1. After this is done, the tools you mention above will allow running ARMv8 guests on M1 Macs.

Second, different instruction set destroys binary compatibility at CPU level. Rosetta fixes this for Mac applications, but Rosetta specifically does not (can not and will not) support virtual machines. Anyone trying to run Intel code in a virtual machine needs to have a virtual machine able to interpret machine code form x86/x64 to ARMv8.

What we know at the moment:

1. VMware: will rewrite virtualization code, will be able to run ARMv8 Windows (if license allows) and Linux. May create emulation layer and thus be able to run x86/x64 operating systems as guests.

2. Parallels: as above. Maybe slightly more probably supports x86/x64 for competition reasons (Mac community is only a niche for VMware).

3. Docker: will rewrite virtualization code, will be able to use all dockers able to run on ARM (vast majority). Will not create an emulator.

All three have indicated they are soon releasing a fully working virtualization system. Parallels demonstrated theirs months ago.

However, the emulation stuff is more complicated. There are at least two opposite trends. If MS releases a reasonably licensed version of ARM Windows capable of emulating x86/x64 (they have all the software already now), the incentive for carrying out a huge development project for emulation is very small. Very few customers would need x86/x64 emulation outside of Windows.

On the other hand, ARM based solutions are becoming more and more common. Laptops and desktops are the last Intel fortress, as even supercomputers and cloud services are migrating to the ARM world. So, it might happen there would be more demand for high-quality emulation layers.

(And, on the yet another hand, it might be that almost all server software will just be recompiled, and no one needs emulation beyond some silly desktop software.)